Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do.
And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with
– even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department.
Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. Romans 14.1: The Message

You are not logged in. [Log In] unOFFICIAL WORLDWIDE ADVENTIST FORUM » Forums » Bible, Theology and Related items » In Defense of the Faith » Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#143788 - 11/03/07 03:15 AM Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	10 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE BIBLE TEACHING ON MAN’S NATURE 1 – Why didn’t Moses, in his detailed report of man’s creation, leave any hint of an “immortal soul” as an essential component of human’s life, exclusive of his existence at Creation? Note.: That would be the right moment to deal with the subject, since Moses offers so many details of the divine acts in the Creation work in general, and of man’s formation, in particular. 2 – Why does Moses employ the same language (exact words) for “living soul”, both regarding man and the animals (compare Gen.2:7 with 1:20 and Lev. 11:46)? Note.: Translators of some Bible versions translated the Hebrew words nephesh hayyah as “living creature” when referring to the animals, however, there isn’t the least difference. It is exactly the language Moses used to deal with “living soul” referring to man. 3 – Why doesn’t Moses make a difference between man’s breath of life and that of the animals, treating them on the same basis, even utilizing the same words (Gen. 2:7; 1:30, 6:17)? Note.: The breath of life cannot represent something immaterial, immortal, that survives matter because that is not the Bible definition for “soul”, and such word never comes modified by the adjectives “immortal” or “eternal” throughout the Bible. 4 – How can one prove that the fact that God blew particularly the life breath into man turns it into an “immortal soul”, when there isn’t the least information about that by the author, which would be of very much importance to define human nature? Note.: The detail of a “separate”, “private” creation of man, compared to that of the animals, is a very weak “evidence” in favor of the dualistic view because the detailing of man’s creation involves the main character of God’s work, besides that of the woman. The animals are mere co-stars in the scenery, which pictures the divine preoccupation with the being created at His image and likeness, something that doesn’t characterize the animals. 5 – How can one prove that the fact that God blew the breath of life particularly in man makes that an “immortal soul”, when there is clear information, both in the creation report and millennia later, in the words of wise man Solomon, that the same breath of life is attributed to the animals (see Ecl. 3:19-21)? Note.: Solomon engages himself in a profound reflection on the human life and shows that “everything is vanity”, since not even in death man takes an advantage over the animals. If he believed in the immortality of the soul, he would not have employed such language to avoid ambiguity and to not convey materialistic notions. But even his description of man in death, with the removal of the breath of life, is similar to the way the psalmist refers to the death of the animals (compare Ecl. 13:7 with Psalm 104:25-29). 6 – Why would man need an immortal soul, since he was not planned to die, according to the original project of God’s creation, rather would live eternally as a physical being, in a physical paradise (as would also be the case of the animals, by the way. . .)? Note.: Sin is an intruder in this planet, which brought physical and spiritual death to man. But the divine “contingency plan” is the final resurrection, a measure taken AFTER sin, as part of His restoring plan. Resurrection integrates the serpent’s head crush in view of the conflict between good and evil (Gen. 3:15). Victory on death occurs due to the resurrection of the dead, not to the fact that the individual overcomes it for possessing a spiritual element that prevails over death (see 1 Cor. 15:52-55). 7 – When exactly that “immortal soul” is introduced into the living being? Is it when the egg is fertilized? Is it when the baby leaves the mother’s womb and breathes by the first time, since the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is established? Note.: The difficulty in establishing the beginning of the possession of that “immortal soul” is immense, especially when the dualists link directly “breath of life/immortal soul”. For the fetus DOESN’T BREATH in the uterus, being involved with fluids until the mother brings it out in birth. 8 – Since Moses is considered by many scholars and by the Jewish tradition as the author of the very ancient book of Job, doesn’t it seem strange that in such book he doesn’t leave the least clue of a dualistic notion, instead he pictures the patriarch expressing a holistic view, not a dualistic one (see following note)? Note.: The book of Job offers a mortal blow on the dualistic notion. The patriarch likens death to a river that gets dry and a lake that has its waters drained, and when he refers directly to being with God, he speaks of the time when the Redeemer “He will stand upon the Earth”, without leaving the least idea of a soul going to encounter Him (see 14:7-14 and 19:25-27). 9 – Where exactly is that “immortal soul” located? Since the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is established, and Job declares at a certain point “as long as I have life within me, the breath of God in my nostrils” (Job 27:3), is each one’s nose the location of that “immortal soul”? Note.: If the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is valid, this soul really leaves and gets back into the system, at least in large measure, all the time, leaving as “contaminated” (carbonic gas) and entering new breath of another substance (oxygen to “purify” the blood). That seems a very strange thing to be something fluidic that has conscience, thus remaining forever after death. 10 – Isn’t it a tremendous coincidence that all pagan peoples always had as their ideological characteristic the belief in the immortality of the soul, even attributing souls and spirits to animals or even inanimate things, such as forests, lakes, volcanoes? Note.: There are no news of any pagan people, from this time or the past, that renounced to their belief in “souls” and “spirits”, to adopt the belief that “a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28, 29).
Top

#143796 - 11/03/07 03:23 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	10 TOPICS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HOLISTIC VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE OVER THE DUALISTIC VIEW The dualistic view of the human nature and destiny (belief in the immortality of the soul) cannot be considered superior in any way to the holistic understanding of these themes. We would challenge the advocates of that position to present what superior aspects they could find in their understanding of the question in comparison with the enumeration that we present below of items in which one can perceive the indisputable superiority of the holistic view over the understanding of immortality of the soul. 1.) Much more Christ-centered. The holistic understanding stresses that only in Christ we have hope of obtaining immortality, at the resurrection of the just ones, not being something we already possess inherently in the form of an immortal soul. “He who has the Son has the life” (cf. John 5:28, 29; 1 John 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:51-54). 2.) Greater foundation on the basic doctrine of righteousness by faith. There is only one who is good, Jesus said (see Mat. 19:17). In an absolute sense only God is just, while we are infinitely far from possessing justice of our own. The holistic vision highlights that as we have no justice in ourselves by which to appear before the Supreme Judge to obtain approval (see Isaiah 64:6), we also don’t have inherently the gift of immortality, which only belongs to God (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16) and is granted to us through the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:10). 3.) Greater emphasis and valuation of the theme of Christ’s advent. For those who believe in the immortality of the soul the theme of Christ’s second coming doesn’t receive the same importance, for, in practical terms, such event becomes irrelevant, since the eternal inheritance occurs at death. This explains the emphasis on the second advent and the conclusion of the evangelization work among Seventh-day Adventists by every means possible (radio, TV, literature, personal witnessing, public lectures, health and social assistance). The fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 is the great preoccupation and motivation of the SDA Church, which has the largest number of penetrated lands and proportionally the largest number of missionaries among all those who are engaged in the task of world evangelization. 4.) Greater consistency with the theme of each one’s judgment. Those who believe in the immortality of the soul turn the theme of the final judgment into a non-sense thing. Why and what for will a final judgment be set, since people at their death go directly to their final destination—saved ones to “the glory”, lost ones to a site of tortures or, at least, a place not agreeable at all, where they will be expecting a punishment already defined? 5.) No identification with pagan beliefs. The identification of all pagan peoples with dualistic concepts demonstrates the superiority of the holistic view. Nobody is capable of indicating at least one pagan people that have renounced to belief in souls and spirits of people (or even of animals and inanimate things) to believe in the final resurrection as the only means to return to existence after death, a point even highlighted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, one of the foundations of the dualistic view (cf. Luke 16:31). 6.) Better defense against dangerous doctrines. The holistic view is the best protection and antidote against subtle errors that exist or has come to existence in these last times, such as spiritualism, Catholic doctrines as the purgatory and intercession of the saints, Mormonism, New Age, Eastern religions, etc., especially in the face of Christ’s and Paul’s warnings regarding the growing deceits of the final times (Matthew 24:24; 2 Timothy 3:1-5). 7.) Higher estimation of the divine love and justice. The vision of God’s justice and love is harmed by the belief in an eternally burning hell, with punishments totally out of proportion with the impenitent ones’ guilt. According to the holistic view, the pay will be proportional to the guilt and it will be liquidated, not made eternal (Matthew 5:26 and 18:30). 8.) Greater consistency with the meaning of basic Bible terms. Even though in the Bible language there are many mentions to “soul” and “spirit”, the Scriptures don’t authorize any concept of either an immortal “soul” or “spirit”. Besides informing us that only God is possessor of immortality, the Bible states that the soul can die (Ezekiel 18:4; James 5:20), not the opposite of it. 9.) Greater valuation of bodily health. It is well known that the Christians who maintain the dualistic understanding of human nature conceptualize the present life dualistically. They tend to consider the cultivation of the soul as more important than the care of the body. The physical well being of the body is often intentionally ignored, or even suppressed. That explains the holistic preoccupation of Seventh-day Adventists with health and the emphasis on the care of the body as “temple of the Holy Spirit”, to be wholly consecrated to the Lord (1 Corinthians 3: 16, 17). 10.) A more mature and real picture of the world to come. The popular notion of an eternal paradise, where glorified souls will spend eternity wearing white robes, playing harps, sailing on clouds and drinking the nectar of gods is alien to the Scriptures. The Bible speaks of the resurrected redeemed ones dwelling on this planet, that has been purified and transformed, turned into a perfect world at the second coming of the Lord (2 Peter 3:11-13; Romans 8:19-25; Revelation 21:1). The “new heavens and new Earth” (Isaiah 65:17) are not a remote and inconsequent spiritual retreat in some corner of the Universe. Rather, they are the present heavens and Earth renewed back to its original perfection.
Top

#143979 - 11/05/07 05:49 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	More Discussions on the Law Issue: A Look Back Confirms Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Covenants Theme (Again) In the longest article of the 2007 September/October issue of Proclamation! Magazine, under the title “Old Covenant Law—A look back and a look away”, Mr. Ratzlaff just confirms his poor articulation of the law theme as we have already covered both in the articles “The False Premise of Dale Ratzlaff’s Theological Stand”, “Mr. Ratzlaff’s Poor Articulation of the Theme of God’s Law” and “Mr. Ratzlaff’s Disappointing Assessment of ‘THE LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART’ Theme”, besides many other references to the false interpretations of the whole semi-antinomian/semi-dispensationalist theology that he embraced along pags. 1 and 2 of the topic, “Some Challenging Questions to a Challenger of Our Faith” of different forums (now in 5 forums in English, 2 in Spanish, with indication of link in one more in English and another in Spanish. All the material is also promoted among Portuguese-speaking people who can read Spanish easily). Basically what we have is the same get-rid-of-the-Sabbath-and-dietary-rules principles in exchange for a vague “law of Christ”, that has no “specifics” duly enumerated for a Christian to follow. It’s all based on a supposed guidance of the Spirit that somehow substitutes the Ten Commandments, which proved an inadequate rule of Christian conduct, for being “incomplete.” Now, it is paradoxical that despite this supposed inadequacy of the 10 Commandments as a rule for the Christian life, NINE out of TEN of these commandments are validated in the New Testament, inadequate and incomplete as this rule is said to be. Speak of contradiction. . . But what many readers of Ratzlaff’s materials ignore is that this theology of his is in the wrong wayin relation to the classical, historical and official teachings of the most representative and authoritative Protestant/Evangelical confessional documents and the interpretations of prominent authors in that milieu, both of the present and the past. So much so that even now there is a campaign under way in the USA, already reaching other countries, to promote a “10 Commandments Day” by a “10 Commandments Committee”, under the auspices of the Protestant leaders of the highest reputation and authority in this country, like James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, James D. Kennedy (the latter two already deceased), and many others. They are collecting signatures for setting the first Sunday of May as “10 Commandments Day”, having collected over 332,000 only through the Internet. For all these important people in the command of the Evangelical/Protestant community, the 10 Commandments don’t seem so inadequate and incomplete, as “new covenant” theologian Dale Ratzlaff imagines. His argument is that the new paradigm for the Christian is not “old covenant law, not even the Decalogue”, but new principles based on “love.” Now, it’s incredible how he can repeat the same type of argument that we already refuted, just reminding him that when Jesus proclaimed His “golden rule” of the two basic commandments (“love to God/love to the neighbor”) He simply reiterated what Moses had already said. There is nothing new in this double principle, which ALWAYS characterized God’s law. There was NEVER a law of God that didn’t have as its foundation love to God and love to the neighbor. Can’t Mr. Ratzlaff understand something so obvious? Besides, it is just a question of applying the “small letter rule”, as I call it—utilize the small letters added by the Bible editors in the text, that lead to the footnotes, where equivalent letters point to other related texts. If Mr. Ratzlaff just do that, he will notice that Matthew 22:36-40 or Mark 12:28-34 are referenced as a quotation by Jesus of Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Now, I once found an Evangelical “theologian” of this same semi-antinomian semi-dispensationalist line of reasoning who said something like—“the Decalogue is incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to smoke, for example. . .” Oh yeah? But if it forbade smoking, it could be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to sniff marihuana. If it forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to inhale cocaine. If it did forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because it doesn’t prohibit to inject heroin in the veins. If it forbade that, it could still be deemed incomplete because . . . Well, but how about seeing what people of the highest prestige in the Protestant/Evangelical field said and say about the role and importance of the Decalogue? Let’s start with the great champion of the Reformation: * Martin Luther: The Reformer and great righteousness by faith champion, in his document “A Treatise Against Antinomians” refers to these deniers of the validity of the Ten Commandments in his time as “new spirits . . . which have undertaken to thrust the law of God, or the ten commandments out of the Church.” A little later he refers again to a certain opponent who has “written against the Moral Law, or Ten Commandments; and to profess that he is of the same judgment as we are here at Wittenberg, as likewise at Augsburg, according to the tenor of our confession and Apology tendered to the Emperor: And if hereafter he shall hold or teach the contrary, he willeth me to pronounce the same to be Null and condemned. I could find in my heart to commend him for stooping so low. . .”, to add some paragraphs below that: “I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or Ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours.” Now, how about what other great giant of the Protestant Reformation said: * John Calvin: “We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform”—Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, (1845), vol. I, p. 277. Advancing to the eighteenth century, we have the great English revivalist John Wesley also giving his contribution to this study: “In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly ‘judge the law’ itself, and ‘speak evil of the law’; who teach men to break . . . all the commandments at a stroke; who teach, without any cover, in so many words,--‘What did our Lord do with the law? He abolished it. There is but one duty, which is that of believing. All commands are unfit for our times. . ..’ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!” – John Wesley, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount”, Discourse 5, in Works (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1833), Vol. 5, 1829 ed.), pp. 311, 317. [To be continued in the next frame]
Top

#143980 - 11/05/07 05:51 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	[Continued from the previous frame] Reaching more recent times, we have the fervent evangelist Dwight L. Moody adding some comments also quite embarrassing to Mr. Ratzlaff: “I never met an honest man who found any flaws in the Ten Commandments. The law given at the Sinai has lost nothing of its solemnity. . . People need to be led to understand that the Ten Commandments are still in vigor, and that there is a penalty related to each violation. . . The Sermon of the Mount did not cancel the Ten Commandments.” – Weighed and Wanting, pp. 11 and 16. And the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon adds to Ratzlaff’s perplexing condition in his poor articulation of the theme of God’s law: “The law of God is a divine law, holy, heavenly, perfect. Those who find fault with the law, or in the least degree depreciate it, do not understand its design, and have no right idea of the law itself. . . . In all we ever say concerning justification by faith, we never intend to lower the opinion which our hearers have of the law, for the law is one of the most sublime of God’s works. There is not a commandment too many; there is not one too few; but it is so incomparable, that its perfection is a proof of its divinity.” – C. H. Spurgeon, Sermons, 2d series (1857), p. 280. “No human lawgiver could have given forth such a law as that which we find in the Decalogue. It is a perfect law; for all human laws that are right are to be found in that brief compendium and epitome of all that is good and excellent toward God, or between man and man.” – Ibid. In 1933 the Moody Bible Institute Monthly published a series of articles under the title “Are Christians Freed From the Law?” in which the author shows how the New Testament emphasizes, enlarges and enforces it in all its details. He shows how Christ and the apostles dealt with it: “So far from annulling any of the Ten Commandments, He [Christ] amplified their scope, teaching that an angry thought or bitter word violated the sixth, and a lustful look the seventh (Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28). The teaching of the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is even more emphatic and explicit concerning the scope and obligations of the moral law.”—Op. Cit., October, 1933. Christ’s act of amplifying the meaning of the law, stressing its more profound, ethical and moral aspects, doesn’t represent any establishment of new laws, but a reiteration of the SAME law that His hearers knew very well, but had lost sight of these features. After all, it was ALWAYS wrong to look at a woman with impure intentions (see Job 31:1) and it was ALWAYS wrong to hate a neighbor (Lev. 19:17). I have been asking to advocates of these “new law” theories, who base themselves in this argument of Christ’s comments on the law, if when He said to the Pharisees that in their tithing practice they should take into account judgment, mercy and faith, He was creating these principles on the spot or were they there, in the tithe law, all the time, but not realized by those religious people (see Matt. 23:23)? I think that any one who knows how to answer this question will understand the whole issue of what Jesus meant in Matt. 5:21ff. That is in the context of what He said in the key-text of Matt. 5:20: “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, how about examining some of exegetical points regarding certain distorted texts through some highly regarded Bible commentaries? Let’s start with Adam Clarke, on Rom. 7:13: * Adam Clarke: “. . . it was one design of the law to show the abominable and destructive nature of sin, as well as to be a rule of life. It would be almost impossible for a man to have that just notion of the demerit of sin so as to produce repentance, or to see the nature and necessity of the death of Christ, if the law were not applied to his conscience by the light of the Holy Spirit; it is then alone that he sees himself to be carnal, and sold under sin; and that the law and the commandment are holy, just, and good. And let it be observed, that the law did not answer this end merely among the Jews in the days of the apostle; it is just as necessary to the Gentiles to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the Gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly. The law, therefore, is the grand instrument in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken sinners; and he may safely show that every sinner is under the law, and consequently under the curse, who has not fled for refuge to the hope held out by the Gospel: for, in this sense also, Jesus Christ is the End of the Law for justification to them that believe.” (Source: http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book:ro&chapter:007; also: http://www.e-sword.net) Let’s see two more commentaries, on the misunderstood text of Hebrews 7:12: * John Gill: “. . . the moral law, that was in being before the priesthood of Aaron . . . still remains, for it is perfect, and cannot be made void by any other; nor is it set aside by Christ's priesthood: though there is a sense in which it is abolished; as it is in the hands of Moses; as it is a covenant of works; as to justification by it; and as to its curse and condemnation to them that are Christ's; yet it still remains in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation. . . the ceremonial law, which was but a shadow of good things to come . . . was given but for a time; and this concerned the priesthood, and was made void by the priesthood of Christ; for that putting an end to the Levitical priesthood, . . . must unavoidably cease, and become of no effect.” – John Gill’s commentary on Heb. 7:12 (Source: http://www.e-sword.net) * Albert Barnes: “The Law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connection requires us to understand it only of the Law ‘so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood.’ This could not apply to the ten commandments – for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws - constituting a code of considerable extent and importance – was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by ‘one of a wholly different order,’ the Law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding.’ This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence, it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net). [To be concluded in the next frame]
Top

#143981 - 11/05/07 05:54 AM Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith [Re: A_G_Brito]
A_G_Brito Registered: 04/28/07 Posts: 149	[Continued from the previous frame] Mr. Ratzlaff quotes out of context Romans 7:6 skipping others texts in the same chapter, as vs. 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, and especially 25, where Paul, using the present tense throughout, says that he with his mind serves the “law of God”, which is holy, good, just, spiritual and contains the precept, “ye shall not covet.” So let’s see what other authors of Bible commentaries have to say on that text: * Matthew Henry: “The second marriage [of Paul’s illustration in Rom. 7:6] is to Christ. By death we are freed from obligation to the law as a covenant, as the wife is from her vows to her husband. In our believing powerfully and effectually, we are dead to the law, and have no more to do with it than the dead servant, who is freed from his master, has to do with his master's yoke. The day of our believing, is the day of being united to the Lord Jesus. We enter upon a life of dependence on him, and duty to him. Good works are from union with Christ; as the fruitfulness of the vine is the product of its being united to its roots; there is no fruit to God, till we are united to Christ. The law, and the greatest efforts of one under the law, still in the flesh, under the power of corrupt principles, cannot set the heart right with regard to the love of God, overcome worldly lusts, or give truth and sincerity in the inward parts, or any thing that comes by the special sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. Nothing more than a formal obedience to the outward letter of any precept, can be performed by us, without the renewing, new-creating grace of the new covenant.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net). Matthew Henry comments additionally on vs. 22: “For as the believer is under grace, and his will is for the way of holiness, he sincerely delights in the law of God, and in the holiness which it demands, according to his inward man; that new man in him, which after God is created in true holiness.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net). That is in perfect harmony with Martin Luther’s commentary, which I already quoted in one of our articles aforementioned, where he says that “our conscience under the law is attached to the old sinful man; but as he is dead by the Spirit, the conscience is free . . . so that now it can be linked so much more to Christ, the new man, and produce fruits for life.” And let’s see how John Wesley comments Rom. 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law – The holiness it required, described, Rom_8:11. Might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit – Who are guided in all our thoughts, words, and actions, not by corrupt nature, but by the Spirit of God. From this place St. Paul describes primarily the state of believers, and that of unbelievers only to illustrate this.” (Source: http://www.e-sword.net). The text of Romans 8:8-11 is a mortal blow on this semi-antinomian semi-dispensationalist theological noveltymonger Ratzlaff, especially as we check the illuminating way the New English Bible translated it: “What the law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature to do away with sin. God did this so that the righteous demands of the Law might be fully satisfied in us who live according to the Spirit, not according to human nature. . . . . . a man becomes an enemy of God when his mind is controlled by what human nature wants; for he does not obey the law, and in fact he cannot obey it. Those who obey their human nature cannot please God. But you do not live as your human nature tells you to; you live as the Spirit tells you to—if, in fact, God’s Spirit lives in you.” We can see that the Spirit guides a man, indeed, but leading him to obedience to God’s law, not to substitute it establishing itself as a “new law”, as Ratzlaff’s theology. All these statements above by these most reputed Christian pioneers and authors (and we could quote many more) is in perfect harmony with the historical Confessions of Faith of the diverse Protestant churches, of which we could cite the following ones: Baptist Church: “We believe that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, good, just and the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen man to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their love of sin; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible church.” -- New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Article 12. Methodist Church: “The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and man. . . . Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christians men, . . . no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called Moral”-- Article 7 of the Thirty and Nine Articles of Religion. [Note.: This same confession is adopted by the Episcopal/Anglican Church]. Presbyterian Church: “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. . . . the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.” . . . The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law. . . under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected” – Sections V, VII and XX of Chap. XIX of the “Westminster Confession of Faith.” [Note.: This is also validated for the Congregational Church]. CONCLUSION I have an old aunt who is not very attentive to certain important “details” in life, and once she filled her car that run on gasoline with diesel oil. Of course it stopped soon after she left the gas station and wouldn’t run anymore. The mechanics had a hard time to discover where the problem was, for they were looking to the mechanical parts, when the source of the problem was somewhere else. But an even worse trouble for her was when she was traveling through a region she was not familiar with, looking for a highway that would lead her to her destination. She finally reached an intersection to get to the Interstate, and got to the access ramp happy for finally having come to that thoroughfare. Unexpectedly her car crashed head on with another vehicle that came down the same ramp. She had taken the one that exits the highway, instead of getting to that entering it. Mr. Ratzlaff should get better information of what is the historical, classical and even OFFICIAL stand of the most representative Evangelical/Protestant confessional documents and instructional material by the most reputed leaders of this community of Christian believers before launching himself in this enterprise of interpreting the law/grace issue, for he could be crashing theologically for taking the WRONG WAY in his discussions of a subject he clearly shows he is not well acquainted with.
Top